Poindexter: Disclosure With Justice

Published: April 13, 1990

The successful prosecution of former national security adviser John Poindexter is a triumph for valued but often conflicting principles. One is the public's right to know, which is keenest when a scandal like Iran-contra erupts. Another is the need to bring wrongdoers to justice. A third is the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Those interests have been well served in this case. That was far from certain when Congress began to investigate Iran-contra three years ago. Lawrence Walsh, the independent prosecutor, pleaded with Congress not to summon Mr. Poindexter or his aide Oliver North as witnesses lest they give compelled, incriminating testimony that would make prosecution all but impossible.

Quite properly, the joint committee chose to air the scandal in public, though it hoped the hearings wouldn't cripple any prosecution. Mr. Poindexter and Mr. North publicly admitted key elements of crimes with which they were later charged, like lying to and obstructing Congress, even as they defiantly denied criminal intent.

A 1970 law provided the route to disclosure with justice. It authorizes courts to compel testimony like Mr. North's and Mr. Poindexter's while denying prosecutors its use against those witnesses. This let Mr. Walsh proceed, though often with difficulty, using independently derived evidence.

Still other delicate balances needed striking. Government must protect legitimate national security secrets. But it must also hear the pleas of defendants who say they can't get a fair trial without the disclosure of classified information. Judge Harold Greene also shrewdly required President Reagan to testify on videotape but rejected exposure of his private diaries.

Another hard choice lies ahead. The independent counsel law lets Mr. Walsh choose when to end his investigation. Mr. Walsh shows an interest in pressing Mr. Poindexter and Mr. North further before a grand jury. He is entitled to do that to learn more about the culpability of others. Since he can safely promise the two defendants that their own prosecutions are at an end, the only obstacle to their full cooperation would be their loyalty to an illegal mission. That, so far, has been a higher calling than the needs of the law.

Mr. Poindexter's willingness to cooperate ought to weigh heavily when he is sentenced in June. It also cautions against any move to pardon him or Mr. North. At a minimum, those who deserve clemency should be contrite and cooperative.

Both men have a duty to help lawful authority reach a full accounting of Iran-contra. Meanwhile they stand convicted in a manner that admirably serves both disclosure and justice.